Well i guess this sorta makes sense. If anyone tries to report anything it wont be reviewable, since its not recorded.

Quote:

The InfoWars app hosts a news page that includes exclusive and curated news articles, a store page where users can buy merchandise, and a "shows" page where users can watch livestreams of InfoWars and its host Alex Jones' video podcasts. Since the app hosts livestreams rather than recorded videos or audio clips (like the removed InfoWars podcasts), it makes it harder to discover when the app itself has violated Apple's rules.

There's a careful line between policing and censoring...and this seems kind of where it is. There's more risk to actual content providers because they are hosting the content. Apple isn't hosting the content, merely the app that people can then choose to get content on. The app itself isn't offensive, though it can be used to view "offensive" content, but so can a web browser.

As a guy that just had a new iOS app version bounce for the crime of saying "what's new" is "feature-parity with android version" (bounced for mentioning "irrelevant third party platform"), it seems a bit rich that Jones can stay.

Fine by me. No different than me using Safari on my iPhone to visit sites that might have pornography or hate speech. Apple doesn't censor what I view with Safari, they only censor content that they host on their servers/store.

Which I believe they have every right to as a private company. People seem to think that their right to free speech entitles them to access a platform to host that free speech. Not if that platform is privately owned.

Wow, those are some BROAD bannable categories. Is there a political oriented app (of just about any ideology) that wouldn't be "offensive, insensitive, upsetting" to a lot of people? Let alone Alex Jones.

Twitter remains a holdout in this situation, as it hasn't punished or banned Jones or InfoWars like other tech giants have.

Twitter has a problem in that any terms of conduct they could point to as a justification for doing that would unavoidably also apply to another user (@ICantBelieveItDoesntUsePOTUS) who is currently a veritable goldmine for their connection graph algorithms.

Wow, those are some BROAD bannable categories. Is there a political oriented app (of just about any ideology) that wouldn't be "offensive, insensitive, upsetting" to a lot of people? Let alone Alex Jones.

Basically gives Apple a "ban whoever we want" option.

In that case you wouldn't like the part where Apple says that these rules are a living document and they can remove an app that they find problematic even if it doesn't violate any of the explicitly stated rules.

And now because of all this banning and extra attention this app has risen in popularity a lot.

i’m not sure the banning helped or made matters worse.

I'd bet that effect is gonna be largely temporary, once the news cycle moves on and he's getting less free publicity it's probably gonna hurt him more to be banned from so many platforms than this short-term bump in exposure helps him

Infowars is now the #1 news app in the App Store. Congratulations neolibs you've made him more popular than ever.

I'd say it's more the fault of mainstream conservatives not condemning Jones' antics. Someone supporting some of your political views is not a reason to defend someone who repeats insane conspiracy theories and calls them news.

Infowars is now the #1 news app in the App Store. Congratulations neolibs you've made him more popular than ever.

No it isn't - among "Top Free" Twitter is, New Break is 2nd and Infowars Official is third. But you have to scroll a long way down to even see it..

Apps we love (not there), Local news (not there), National and World News, Bite Size News, Listen Up, Financial News, RSS Readers, Top Paid, Top Free - all of those categories have 3 showing (and see more as an options) so it's actually the 21st item you see if you scroll far enough.

I'll take your NeoLib insult and raise you a "fact-avoiding troll" in return.

Back in the day my mother used to have a saying: "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves." I think ultimately given enough time and lawsuits Alex Jones will end up collapsing under the weight of fees from lawsuits and such. He's already counter-suing a family for $100,000 to pay for costs he's incurring from that suit.

As a guy that just had a new iOS app version bounce for the crime of saying "what's new" is "feature-parity with android version" (bounced for mentioning "irrelevant third party platform"), it seems a bit rich that Jones can stay.

Maybe they promised that the iOs app will have more features than the Android app

I'm torn on this whole thing. the guy is an offensive loonbat, but I fear that platforms and networks trying to silence him will only embolden him and his supporters. we're talking about people who would believe any attempt to suppress him means he must be right.

Infowars is now the #1 news app in the App Store. Congratulations neolibs you've made him more popular than ever.

I'd say it's more the fault of mainstream conservatives not condemning Jones' antics. Someone supporting some of your political views is not a reason to defend someone who repeats insane conspiracy theories and calls them news.

Except for the ones that do. I keep an eye on a number of sites with conservative political news and they are not keen on Alex Jones, not even one little iota.

Wow, those are some BROAD bannable categories. Is there a political oriented app (of just about any ideology) that wouldn't be "offensive, insensitive, upsetting" to a lot of people? Let alone Alex Jones.

Basically gives Apple a "ban whoever we want" option.

Which, there is nothing wrong with. It's their platform, they aren't required to provide anyone a place in it. They could just as easily arbitrarily ban apps/developers with no reason given. The terms are mostly there to point at when someone complains about getting banned. It just makes them look a bit bad when the aren't consistently applied; I would argue that jones brand of horseshit falls into the "offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, or in exceptionally poor taste" category, but at the end of the day it is up to Apple to decide what they allow on their platform.

I've never read Alex Jones or consumed any of his material, but it concerns me that so many companies dumped him the same day.

Note, I'm NOT defending him. From what I heard, I wouldn't like his content. I'm concerned more about the group effort to deplatform people.

Who get's deplatformed next? What thought crime will be next to go down?

It's one thing if they are promoting violence or glorifying crime (e.g. ANTIFA - I've seen their photos praising violent criminal behavior). Anyone actively encouraging or inciting violence should be on notice and/or banned. Hrm, there are a few Congress people who might be in trouble with that as of late - but I digress. Really, if someone is encouraging people to attack, harass or intimidate any opponent regardless of their position should be on notice.

That's tricky though. There can be a fine line between objectionable speech and a call to harm others. Still, objectionable opinions aren't the problem. Personally, I ignore them or try to understand them to see why I differ.

Still, a call to violent/criminal action or supporting and encouraging those who have acted violently should be a foundation for banning, not simple distaste for their opinions.

As a guy that just had a new iOS app version bounce for the crime of saying "what's new" is "feature-parity with android version" (bounced for mentioning "irrelevant third party platform"), it seems a bit rich that Jones can stay.

Whilst I understand your pain, I also understand Apple's reason for the rejection.

Stating "feature parity with Android" is completely meaningless unless you're someone who has both an iOS and an Android device and uses the same app on both - which is probably an extremely small subset of users.

It's better to actually state what additional features you've added or removed to get to that parity.

As a guy that just had a new iOS app version bounce for the crime of saying "what's new" is "feature-parity with android version" (bounced for mentioning "irrelevant third party platform"), it seems a bit rich that Jones can stay.

Infowars is now the #1 news app in the App Store. Congratulations neolibs you've made him more popular than ever.

Sometimes I wonder if upper management at Apple decided to keep it just out of spite towards the more traditional -MSNBBCNNBCS- news corporations for dogpiling towards the company in the previous months. The same could be said about Google and Twitter too.

I'd say it's more the fault of mainstream conservatives not condemning Jones' antics. Someone supporting some of your political views is not a reason to defend someone who repeats insane conspiracy theories and calls them news.

There's an unspoken double standard in there though.

When a radical islamicist blows up a market, they're "not a real muslim". When the black blob smashes a business district, they're "not real progressives".

But when one nutcase on the radio says a thing, he's a real conservative and every conservative needs to apologize for him being a nutcase.

No we don't, not if the other side readily handwaves away everything that could be pinned on them.

Twitter remains a holdout in this situation, as it hasn't punished or banned Jones or InfoWars like other tech giants have.

Twitter has a problem in that any terms of conduct they could point to as a justification for doing that would unavoidably also apply to another user (@ICantBelieveItDoesntUsePOTUS) who is currently a veritable goldmine for their connection graph algorithms.

Twitter appreciates the traffic.

Which is good. A business ought not moralize. Moralization is atomization, and atomization by definition never increases your audience. It decreases it. Sure, you MAY lose people for refusing to atomize. But never as many as you'll lose for giving in and atomizing.

I'd say it's more the fault of mainstream conservatives not condemning Jones' antics. Someone supporting some of your political views is not a reason to defend someone who repeats insane conspiracy theories and calls them news.

There's an unspoken double standard in there though.

When a radical islamicist blows up a market, they're "not a real muslim". When the black blob smashes a business district, they're "not real progressives".

But when one nutcase on the radio says a thing, he's a real conservative and every conservative needs to apologize for him being a nutcase.

No we don't, not if the other side readily handwaves away everything that could be pinned on them.

Twitter remains a holdout in this situation, as it hasn't punished or banned Jones or InfoWars like other tech giants have.

Twitter has a problem in that any terms of conduct they could point to as a justification for doing that would unavoidably also apply to another user (@ICantBelieveItDoesntUsePOTUS) who is currently a veritable goldmine for their connection graph algorithms.

Twitter appreciates the traffic.

Which is good. A business ought not moralize. Moralization is atomization, and atomization by definition never increases your audience. It decreases it. Sure, you MAY lose people for refusing to atomize. But never as many as you'll lose for giving in and atomizing.

To paraphrase what an athlete said some time ago, Conservatives buy iPhones too.

"ince the app hosts livestreams rather than recorded videos or audio clips (like the removed InfoWars podcasts), it makes it harder to discover when the app itself has violated Apple's rules."

So if I recorded the app during a livestream and when he said something which violates the Appeal Store Guidelines, I sent that to Apple, that could get the app removed? Good to know.

if you dont wanna listen to him, you dont have to. I know I dont. but the idea of silencing ideas of those we disagree with comes off very fascist.

you have to download an app to listen to him, its not being forced on you. if you download an app just to screengrab it in the effort to shut it down. all it really shows if you have a pretty sad life.

I'd say it's more the fault of mainstream conservatives not condemning Jones' antics. Someone supporting some of your political views is not a reason to defend someone who repeats insane conspiracy theories and calls them news.

There's an unspoken double standard in there though.

When a radical islamicist blows up a market, they're "not a real muslim". When the black blob smashes a business district, they're "not real progressives".

But when one nutcase on the radio says a thing, he's a real conservative and every conservative needs to apologize for him being a nutcase.

No we don't, not if the other side readily handwaves away everything that could be pinned on them.

If Alex Jones was just a single nut job, I'd agree. But he's a nut job with millions of viewers. It's not just a single person or a tiny group. There's a significant following here. The fucking president listens to the guy.

If millions of black people (or anyone, really) stormed business districts all over the country, then perhaps you'd have a point. A hundred here or there doesn't equate to the influence of Alex Jones.

And uh, we generally denounce the small scale rioting as a society. It's pretty consistent to ask for some denouncement here too.

I've never read Alex Jones or consumed any of his material, but it concerns me that so many companies dumped him the same day.

Note, I'm NOT defending him. From what I heard, I wouldn't like his content. I'm concerned more about the group effort to deplatform people.

Who get's deplatformed next? What thought crime will be next to go down?

It's one thing if they are promoting violence or glorifying crime (e.g. ANTIFA - I've seen their photos praising violent criminal behavior). Anyone actively encouraging or inciting violence should be on notice and/or banned. Hrm, there are a few Congress people who might be in trouble with that as of late - but I digress. Really, if someone is encouraging people to attack, harass or intimidate any opponent regardless of their position should be on notice.

That's tricky though. There can be a fine line between objectionable speech and a call to harm others. Still, objectionable opinions aren't the problem. Personally, I ignore them or try to understand them to see why I differ.

Still, a call to violent/criminal action or supporting and encouraging those who have acted violently should be a foundation for banning, not simple distaste for their opinions.

"Who get's deplatformed next? What thought crime will be next to go down?"

"Deplatformed"--this would be a good title of an episode of Black Mirror.

I'm torn on this whole thing. the guy is an offensive loonbat, but I fear that platforms and networks trying to silence him will only embolden him and his supporters. we're talking about people who would believe any attempt to suppress him means he must be right.

Man screw those people I don't care about them a bit. They can believe he's right all they want. I'm way more worried about the precedent it sets in terms critical platforms responding to mob rule instead of operating by any sort of set principles.

If Alex Jones was just a single nut job, I'd agree. But he's a nut job with millions of viewers. It's not just a single person or a tiny group. There's a significant following here. The fucking president listens to the guy.

Millions of people watch Lewis Black.

Here's the thing:

Progressives take what Alex Jones says literally and seriously.

Most of his audience of millions, take him about as seriously as they take Lewis Black. Yes, Alex Jones is not a "a comedian" per se. But it's a mistake to interpret his show as fundamentally informative rather than entertaining and cathartic.